The era officially ends on October 17, but if you head down to 120 Gray Avenue today, it certainly seems like it is already over. A living, breathing work space for dozens of craftsmen since the Weber’s Bread bakery that once occupied the property shut down in the 1950s, the longtime Funk Zone work yard — thanks to a city unwilling to look the other way and a property owner unwilling to fight — has been disbanded by eviction letters. Even worse, with a sputtering economy making work hard to find and affordable rental alternatives even scarcer, the kick-out is a de facto death blow for many of the evicted businesses. “The end result of this whole thing is people are being put out of work and out onto the street when none of us want to … And for what? So the city can turn this place back into a parking lot?” asked Geoff Blackburn, who, up until this week, ran his joinery business from the yard.
In fact, if all goes according to plan, a parking lot is exactly what is going to become of the once proud work yard. Thirty-day eviction notices — driven by numerous alleged zoning, fire, and safety and building code violations at the property levied by the city earlier this year following an anonymous tip — were served this past spring on 14 of the 20-odd businesses that occupy the lot by property owner Janet Nancarrow, the daughter of Elephant Bar and Carrows Restaurant founder David G. Nancarrow. However, after spending thousands of dollars toward remedying the situation and after getting a reprieve of sorts from the city, thanks in large part to the behind-the-scenes work of city councilmembers Das Williams and Dale Francisco, Nancarrow rescinded a majority of the notices.
While certain violations remained, the message from the city (at least in lip service) was pretty clear: Keep working toward resolution, and we will leave you alone.
Specifically, a zoning issue exists mandating that the outdoor space in the middle of the yard — which has, for several decades, been reimagined as a parking-friendly open-air work yard for welders, surfboard builders, boat builders, cabinetmakers, and others — be cleaned up and out and turned back into the parking lot it was intended to be back in the Weber’s Bread days.
“[Nancarrow] fought to keep this part of the property a working yard, [but] the City has required that your yard space and shop space be returned to its original use as a parking area.”
However, on August 17, for virtually all those who remained in the yard, the other shoe dropped. In a letter hand-delivered to tenants by property management company Lynx Management, a 60-day notice to vacate was announced. According to the letter, “[Nancarrow] fought to keep this part of the property a working yard, [but] the City has required that your yard space and shop space be returned to its original use as a parking area.”
It was a bitter pill to swallow in and of itself, but when taken in the context of the surrounding area, including property owned by Nancarrow herself, where zoning violations and on-the-sly structures are essentially par for the course and parking space is rarely an issue, the news was especially tough to choke down. As one of the evicted, woodworker Skip Saenger, put it, “The city is choosing to enforce this archaic zoning law, but they aren’t looking anywhere else around the neighborhood … I guess, that’s the system, but it sucks. In the big picture, this doesn’t do anyone in this town any good.”
Things went from bad to worse for the evicted when they discovered that things weren’t quite as one-sided as Nancarrow and the property manager would have them believe. According to Das Williams — and backed up by Paul Casey in the city administrator’s office this week — eviction was only one of the options the city presented to Nancarrow this summer. “We laid out a game plan for the owner to pursue which included applying for a coastal development permit and going to the Planning Commission to try and legalize the existing conditions [in the work yard], but the owner, for whatever reason, decided not to do that,” explained Casey. Additionally, the city also reportedly offered Nancarrow a possible resolution that involved moving the businesses in the yard to an indoor location, but again she declined. Expressing a strong “disappointment” with the situation, Williams, who said he personally offered to help Nancarrow through the permitting process if she chose that route, added, “This is very much her decision, and it is not at all what we would have preferred.” For her part, Nancarrow, through a spokesperson, declined to comment for this story.
In the meantime, the yard is all but vacated, tools have been sold, storage containers removed, and feelings hurt. “After more than 13 years down here, I just wish somebody would tell me the truth. We are all big boys. We can handle it,” summed up Ray Duncan, whose popular Ray’s Welding company was a staple on 120 Gray. He is now out of business.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Very Sad, another piece if Old Santa Barbara has been dismantled.
CManSB (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2010 at 12:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If I were Mayor of this City nobody would be be put out of work and pushed to the curb, the City would still get their permit fees, and a process to permit unpermitted improvements would have been streamlined to make it easy for the landowner to bring this conglomerate of shop spaces up to modern day standards. I would have given the owner realistic time to do this as well. If it took 2 years, or 5 years, it would still be productive and in business.
The current administration's top down style of handling planning and development issues is in sharp contrast on Gray, Yanonali, and Santa Barbara St's, where selective enforcement is glaringly obvious. The murky colored water is self induced by Building and Saftey, Zoning, and Planning Department heads that rule the roost for Code Enforcement Revenue. According to the City Attorney, who presented his budget wow's to the City Council, 8% of it's budget was code enforcement revenue, and he was actively looking for it.
Something stinks here, and the word Stupid comes to mind.
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2010 at 4:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good article on a bad situation. This eviction does not make sense. I know that Skip Saenger worked hard for everyone to be able to stay in that space and be in compliance. In the beginning it appeared that Nancarrow was on board to bring everything up to par and Das and a couple of others were ready to help to make it work. Whether Nancarrow never had the intention in the first place to follow through with doing her part and thus mislead the tenants, or whether she just changed her mind and liked the idea of kicking out these workers for a few extra bucks to have a parking lot is a mystery. Who is going to park there??? Obviously not city residents coming to pick up a beautiful, handcrafted cabinet or someone needing a unique welding project built. If the parking lot is for the other surrounding businesses, why aren't they required to have their own parking on site?
At first I thought it was the city that was the bad guy in this.While it does have some culpability, I now realize that the burden of the blame lies with a landlady whose self-interest and either greed or ignorance directs her choices without due concern for the consequences.
whatsername (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2010 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great article. This area of Santa Barbara is part of our collective soul.
So sad to hear that in this time of stress that craftspeople are now out of business due to "code enforcement".
There is something very wrong here...
babushka (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2010 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While I am no fan of landlords or the entire concept of renting in general, I find it hard to buy the easy way out that this is somehow the property owner's fault.
Santa Barbarans are still more than a bit uncomfortable with the inescapable fact that they do NOT live in Paradise, they in fact live in a gold-plated Hell with a pretty view of the ocean. It's hard to give up the Eden concept that has been sold so hard for so long, so it's much easier to blame the landlady than it is to put the blame squarely where it belongs: in the lap of a city which is more interested in lining its own pockets and controlling the lives of its citizens right down to whether one's pet dog is allowed to keep its gonads or not.
So, City Hall fiddles while the town burns, people lose their jobs, the handle on the toilet is pulled yet again, and the economy is flushed ever further down the drain.
Then we run around in circles with hands on heads screaming "What happened? Where did all these homeless people come from? What happened to all the artists? Why are so many people out of work? Where did all these ugly new developments come from? What's with the parking lots and choking traffic?" etc.
Yet SB's powers that be keep revisiting the scene of the crime; putting people out of their homes, jobs, and robbing them of their rights one by one in an endless quest for dollars, control, and social engineering. When are the people going to learn and start saying "no" to this stuff?
SB is more worried about dog gonads, hassling artists and homeless people, and making sure that every one of its little people is marching lockstep "in compliance" with various licensing and permitting processes (and forking over the money to the appropriate designated recipients as they trudge along the approved path) than in daring to actually do sensible things which benefit the people, the city, and ensure a solid, sane future for all.
One ridiculous nanny law after another passes easily, carrying the usual loss of civil rights, price tags, and generally unfunded mandates, as the wags at City Hall nod sagely and proclaim "we did our best to create a win-win situation here.." blah-blah-blah.
Holly (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2010 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We lose the familiar landscape one space, one building, one green spot at a time, all replaced with homogeneous faux-Spanish, odious, overbearing luxury development to benefit the rich, the tourists, the chosen few. And we sit and cry about it as the milk is spilled out on the ground, and nobody says a word.
I cannot say how many times I have shown up to City Council or Board of Supervisors, etc meetings to speak out, only to look around and see a scant few others of like mind, while moneyed special interests show up in a huge herd to speak in favor of the latest development, or "crackdown" on civil rights in one form or other. THIS is why SB gets these projects and ridiculous laws over and over again without fail.
And here we are again; kicking the artists this City never hesitates to take credit for nurturing, to the curb yet again. SB loves artists when they provide a way for it to pat itself on the back or make money for itself, or fluff up a City function. However, heaven help them if they need a place to um...actually CREATE...because THAT requires steep rents, regulations, licensing, permitting, onerous oversight, and the handing over of a mountain of extortion money.
Once again, shame on Santa Barbara, but also, shame on anyone who knew about this situation and chose to ignore it and let the City have its giant, bloated head once again.
The Solstice and the East Beach Art Show do NOT make up for this, Santa Barbara; you are a city which does not support its artists or anyone else who isn't rich, desperate or a tourist pouring $ into the City coffers.
Disgusting.
Holly (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2010 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pin Headed Bureaucrats
A parking lot is a much higher use than artists workspace???
rstein9 (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2010 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Das!!
(I'd thank Dale too, but I'm not speaking to him)
loonpt (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2010 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Joni Mitchell says it best in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94bdMS...
billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 8, 2010 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's interesting that this journalist doesn't even touch upon what it would have cost the landlord to apply for a "coastal development permit" and do everything else required to bring the property up to current code. Sounds to me like a nightmarish spigot of spending.
The whole thing boils down to $$$. These tenants surely pay low rents. You can't blame the landlord for choosing not to spend big money for small returns.
We all know that anything to do with "coastal development permits" costs serious money in this town, despite this journalist's implication to the contrary.
Lars (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2010 at 5:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd say that the workyard alone might have an income of $100,000. / year. The rents were hardly low for what you got. Maybe compared to the over inflated rents in the area due to gentrification, but for what the workyard is it was at par for the service workers who worked there. All of the other tenants on the property surrounding the workyard are inflated in context to there condition and disrepair, most with unpermitted improvements, or illegal occupancy. So, to highlight cheap rents is relative to current use and skirting realistic value. I'd suggest that the surrounding commercial / industrial properties have yet to adjust there rents down to realistic levels.
what the trend has been here is that retail businesses have moved in for cheaper rents from appropriate retail areas, gentrifying workforce spaces out to the levels now. One wonders how far officials should look beyond this specific property? Calling the rents "cheap" is a loaded statement.
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2010 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sadly, the local powers don't care about creating or retaining jobs, unless it is more pencil-pushing bureaucrats.
blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2010 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is really a sad state of affairs. I applaud the councilman who volunteered to help with the permit process. But when I saw "coastal commission", the writing was on the wall. Dealing with Federal Planning, aka TRPA, Coastal Commission etc, is worse than the pinheaded local bureaucrats because it is entirely politically driven so there is no hope of logic. Meanwhile, the fact that SB city council is driving business out of business is obvious and deplorable. Push a little harder and we might get a chance to see who's been buying all the firearms.
shortrees (anonymous profile)
October 11, 2010 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Where is Das Williams big supporter of high density publicly funded redevelopment?
jukin (anonymous profile)
October 12, 2010 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a shame!!!
I think that not too long down the road we'll see a request for building there, upscale, like the antiseptic Yano condos, plus the required by Coastal Commission "workforce" housing. There might even be a sop thrown in for the homeless.
Sounds as though the city did try hard to keep the artisans there....
citti (anonymous profile)
October 19, 2010 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well said, Holly. I so often disagree with you but in this case you are right on target.
c_latrans (anonymous profile)
October 19, 2010 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I tend to agree with the comments laying the blame for this at the feet of the environmental impact / coastal development permitting process.
These kind of hideously expensive permits are part of a tapestry of opposition to small business in California. Make no mistake, it all boils down to money. You have to pay to play, and from the looks of things, residents in the funk zone didn't pay enough.
IronHorse (anonymous profile)
October 19, 2010 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good points. I'd add too that there are unforeseen consequences to the coastal zone development process that were not considered. These consequences raise important questions that need asking and have answers addressed for the record.
easternpacific (anonymous profile)
October 19, 2010 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not understand the praise for Das Williams on this. Anyone that has ever tried to build, develop or get a permit in Santa Barbara knows how expensive, arbitrary and slow the process is. For him to suggest that he would help the landlord through the process is naive at best. A Coastal Development Permit is extremely expensive and usually involves traffic impact and environmental reports and only allows certain uses for a property. There is no way a workyard would be allowed in that process. For Williams to pretend that the city gave the landlord a choice in this regard is ridiculous. He is speaking for his own political benefit.
The City of SB has shown repeatedly that they are incapable of dealing with development. The impose restrictions and expenses without regard to how expensive the process actually is. Look at the dead condominiums on Chapala street, the empty blocks on lower State and the completely undeveloped Garden street between the beach and the freeway. This was supposed to be the "Gateway to Santa Barbara". Despite several plans, nothing has ever been developed there because the City and the coastal permit process are ridiculous. They are run by nest-feathering bureaucrats.
I'm not just speaking of large developments either. Ask almost any small business or home-owner that has tried to remodel their kitchen, build a fence or put in new landscaping. The process adds layers and layers of delay and expense.
Hanker (anonymous profile)
October 22, 2010 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)